Abstract
Mitigation solutions are often evaluated in terms of costs and greenhouse gas reduction potentials, missing out on the consideration of direct effects on human well-being. Here, we systematically assess the mitigation potential of demand-side options categorized into avoid, shift and improve, and their human well-being links. We show that these options, bridging socio-behavioural, infrastructural and technological domains, can reduce counterfactual sectoral emissions by 40–80% in end-use sectors. Based on expert judgement and an extensive literature database, we evaluate 306 combinations of well-being outcomes and demand-side options, finding largely beneficial effects in improvement in well-being (79% positive, 18% neutral and 3% negative), even though we find low confidence on the social dimensions of well-being. Implementing such nuanced solutions is based axiomatically on an understanding of malleable rather than fixed preferences, and procedurally on changing infrastructures and choice architectures. Results demonstrate the high mitigation potential of demand-side mitigation options that are synergistic with well-being.
Highlights
Demand-side mitigation options are increasingly discussed in the literature—for example, refs. 1–3
Income and expenditures reflect only a part of well-being, and monetary cost evaluations, even if starting from a broader framework, often ignore encompassing views on multiple dimensions of well-being. This critique is not new and, on the aggregate scale, there is agreement among economists and philosophers, and in other disciplines, that metrics such as gross domestic product (GDP) insufficiently reflect well-being, and that these must be complemented by more encompassing metrics[7]
These considerations motivate two related questions: first, what is the climate change mitigation potential of demand-side mitigation options? Second, what are the implications for well-being of these demand-side mitigation options? In particular, answering the second question is a considerable challenge because there is no single straightforward and agreed on metric of well-being
Summary
Wasted: How America is Losing up to 40 Percent of its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill (NRDC, 2017); https://www.nrdc.org/ resources/wasted-how-america-losing-40-percent-its-food-farm-fork-landfill 23. R. et al (eds) Special Report on Climate Change and Land (IPCC, 2019). Evolving narratives of low-carbon futures in transportation. Embracing context and complexity to address environmental challenges in the water-energy-food nexus. Analysis of telecommuting behavior and impacts on travel demand and the environment. Policy Pathways: A Tale of Renewed Cities (International Energy Agency, 2013). F. et al Transport: a roadblock to climate change mitigation? C. Global typology of urban energy use and potentials for an urbanization mitigation wedge. Global transportation demand development with impacts on the energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions in a climate-constrained world.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
